Munich: 8 accused of spreading online Islamist propaganda

Via Deutsche Welle:

A trial of eight people accused of spreading Islamist propaganda over the Internet opened in Munich on Tuesday. Prosecutors say the defendents used Internet forums and blogs to call for a holy war.

Seven men and one woman are accused of inciting terrorism and releasing brutal videos of bombings and beheadings as part of the German section of a group known as the “Global Islamic Media Front.”

According to the federal prosecutor, the suspects published German translations of Al-Qaeda propaganda material as well as their own material on the Internet between August 2006 and March 2008, in order to attract new members and support for terrorist organizations abroad.

The defendants are now all between 18 and 30 years old, but some of them were minors at the time. Most had never met before the trial, relying on the Internet to communicate from their homes across Germany.



Who Kills Muslims? Al Qaeda Kills Muslims.

Interesting post relating to the real victims of islamic fascism.


This is not really new news, but it bears repeating: Muslims are actually the main victims of al Qaeda’s jihad against the Evil West, despite claims by number two terrorist douche-bag Ayman al-Zawahri that few Muslims have been killed by al Qaeda’s global war against Westerners.

More research backs this up. From a recent report out of West Point:

“The fact is that the vast majority of al Qaeda’s victims are Muslims: The analysis here shows that only 15 percent of the fatalities resulting from al Qaeda attacks between 2004 and 2008 were Westerners,” according to the report, titled “Deadly Vanguards: A Study of Al Qaeda’s Violence Against Muslims.”

“Many victims of al Qaeda and its affiliates have been Muslim, and people in the Muslim world know that. This explains why many Muslims deplore al Qaeda, and why you see more Muslim voices these days expressing strong opposition to al Qaeda and the ideology it espouses,” the report states.

>A Muslim’s worst nightmare.

Political Correctness: The Lie that Kills

Original Link

It’s been 36 days since the terrorist attack that left 14 dead, 32 wounded, and the nation scratching its collective head, asking why the Muslim extremist U.S. Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan, was so effortlessly able to perpetrate this act of jihad on American soil.

The reason, of course, is Political Correctness. Texas Rep. John Carter’s district includes Fort Hood and he is more than just a little concerned that our government has apparently learned nothing from this horrid event.

We must not wrongfully prejudge people. However, we also can no longer refuse to take the steps necessary to defend ourselves, as clearly was the case with the Fort Hood attack. We can’t allowpolitical correctness to intimidate Americans from speaking out against clear and present dangers out of fear they will be ridiculed or penalized for offending any group. We should have learned that lesson in 2001.

Let’s review the historical record beginning in 2001:

  • Muslim males with ties to radical Islamic groups and persons – including Imam Anwar Al-Awlaki, then of Northern Virginia – rammed airliners into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania on Sept. 11, 2001, killing 2,976 men, women and children.
  • A Muslim male with ties to radical Islamic groups and persons attempted to bomb a U.S. airliner with a shoe bomb in December 2001.
  • A Muslim male with ties to radical Islamic groups and persons attacked the Los Angeles airport in July 2002, killing two persons and wounding four.
  • A Muslim male with ties to radical Islamic groups and persons engaged in a sniping attack with a juvenile accomplice in the Washington area in October 2002, killing 10 and wounding three.
  • A Muslim male with ties to radical Islamic groups and persons attacked his fellow U.S. Army soldiers in their tents in Kuwait in 2003, killing two and wounding 14 of his own comrades, a foreshadowing of the Fort Hood attack.
  • Muslim males with ties to radical Islamic groups and individuals attempted to plan the bombing of the Sears Tower in Chicago in August 2006.
  • Muslim males with ties to radical Islamic groups and persons, including Mr. Al-Awlaki – now in Yemen – plotted in 2006 to attack the Canadian Parliament and other buildings in Toronto.
  • Muslim males with ties to radical Islamic groups and individuals – including the same Mr. Al-Awlaki in Yemen – were arrested in May 2007 for planning an automatic weapons attack on U.S. soldiers at Fort Dix, N.J.
  • A Muslim male with ties to radical Islamic groups and persons attacked a U.S. Army recruiting station in Little Rock, Ark., in June, killing two recruiters.

…which led to this:

  • Another Muslim male with ties to radical Islamic groups and persons, including Mr. Al-Awlaki in Yemen, stands accused of attacking our soldiers and civilians at Fort Hood, Texas, on Nov. 5, killing 14 and wounding 32. Mr. Al-Awlaki is publicly praising Maj. Hasan as a “hero.”

…which could probably have been prevented, because of this:

The FBI and the Defense Department were aware that Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan was in contact with the same Mr. Al-Awlaki in Yemen with ties to the Sept. 11 attackers and the plot to attack Fort Dix, and that Maj. Hasan made verbal and written statements justifying attacks.

Maj. Hasan’s profile, associations, communications and actions were a perfect match with multiple previous attacks in this country that had killed nearly 3,000 Americans since 2001. Yet no action was taken.

So, what’s been done since?

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano’s chief concern apparently is not why the FBI and other authorities failed to prevent another attack, but whether the public might be led to blame Muslims in general, which would be politically incorrect. This is the same Department of Homeland Security that had no problem warning law enforcement agencies earlier this year of a supposed threat from “right-wing extremists,” defined as Americans who believe in the Constitution and oppose Obama administration policies.

Rep. Carter hastens to point out that the American public comprises, on the whole, “good people who have developed a very strong aversion to judging others because of their race, ethnic background, religion or factors other than individual character and conduct.” That said (and help me out here if this seems out of line):

…our virtue is being used as a powerful weapon against us by political extremists within our country and enemies without.

[…] when a Muslim male contacts the radical Islamic colleague of the Sept. 11 hijackers, the Fort Dix shooting plot and the Canadian Parliament bombing plot; tells responsible people that he sympathizes with our enemies; and claims that jihad against the United States is justified, somebody needs to stop him instead of failing to act from fear of violating the unwritten taboos of political correctness.

And why does this need to even be pointed out? Because:

We are letting political correctness destroy our nation. It cost the lives of 14 Americans at Fort Hood, and the current administration apparently has not learned a thing.

There is a simple definition of political correctness. It is just another word for a lie. When we say we have no need to fear or take action against people with clear ties to radical Islamic terrorists, that’s a lie.

We must start acknowledging the truth if we want to survive as a free nation.

God willing.

Perhaps this picture is too kind.

Obama Indoutrination Begins

Tuesday, December 8, 2009, 5:06 AM
Jim Hoft

Missouri parents were upset to see “Change We Can Believe In” notebooks and pencils distributed at the elementary schools.
change missouri
The distribution company Pencil Wholesale says the design was “a total accident.”
Yeah, right.

Missouri parents and teachers were outraged after discovering that “Obama notebooks and pencils” were being distributed at Columbia schools.
The Columbia Daily Tribune reported:

Pencils and notebooks resembling President Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign ads have been sold in at least one Columbia school and other public schools, causing the company that distributes the materials to travel around the state yanking the supplies out of machines.

“Don’t be mad at us,” said Greg Jones, a sales representative with Pencil Wholesale. “It was a total accident.”

Pencil Wholesale distributes supplies to six Columbia schools: Parkade Elementary, Cedar Ridge Elementary, Paxton Keeley Elementary, Mill Creek Elementary, Smithton Middle School and Hickman High School, said Linda Quinley, the district’s chief financial officer.

At Mill Creek, at least one pencil and a notebook with designs similar to Obama campaign advertisements have been sold out of a supply machine. Two families have complained about the politically tinged materials.

Three Missouri schools have contacted Jones since the beginning of the school year asking that the materials be removed, and Mill Creek Principal Mary Sue Gibson this week said she also planned to call Pencil Wholesale.

“I just don’t want to get into that political arena at all,” she said.

The bound three-ring notebook bears a photo of literal change — pennies, quarters, dimes and nickels stacked into piles. Above the photo, white text reads “CHANGE” over a navy background.

Below the photo, “WE CAN BELIEVE IN” sits above a logo similar to Obama’s campaign image — three red stripes separated by white stripes in front of a white circle with a blue background arching over the circle.

The supplies were designed by the art department of Harcourt Pencil Co., based in Milroy, Ind., Jones said.

“The art department was trying to be cutesy,” he said.

Hat Tip Larwyn

Muslim Congressman Ellison’s trip to Mecca cost $13,350 — paid for by the Muslim Brotherhood

Read from Jihad Watch:

ellison, keith

“$13,350 from the group that wants to destroy the West from within

As I noted last December, when it was first revealed that Ellison’s Hajj was paid for by the Muslim American Society:

The Muslim Brotherhood ‘must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.’ — “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Brotherhood in North America,” by Mohamed Akram, May 19, 1991.

What does that have to do with Congressman Ellison? Everything. The Muslim American Society paid for his Hajj. And what is the Muslim American Society? The Muslim Brotherhood.

“In recent years, the U.S. Brotherhood operated under the name Muslim American Society, according to documents and interviews. One of the nation’s major Islamic groups, it was incorporated in Illinois in 1993 after a contentious debate among Brotherhood members.” — Chicago Tribune, 2004.

Imagine if a conservative Congressman had taken a trip that had been paid for by a Christian group that was, according to one of its own documents, dedicated to ‘eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house’ so that Christian law would replace the U.S. Constitution. I expect we would hear more of an outcry than we are hearing about this.

But in this Star Tribune article, the controversy is all about the cost and Ellison’s reporting. No one seems concerned about the nature of the Muslim American Society.

Ellison reveals cost of trip to Mecca: $13.5K,” by Kevin Diaz for the Star Tribune, October 8 (thanks to Paul):

WASHINGTON – ‘After a months-long review by a U.S. House ethics panel, Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., has disclosed the amount of his privately-paid trip to Mecca in December.

The trip, paid for by the Muslim American Society of Minnesota, cost $13,350, Ellison said Thursday.

The two-week trip to Saudi Arabia, which Ellison described as a personal religious pilgrimage, or Hajj, prompted little discussion until June when Ellison filed financial travel reports that failed to disclose the amount the Muslim group had paid for his travel.

In releasing the amount on Thursday, Ellison held to his previous assertion that he was following the instructions of the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, commonly known as the ethics committee.

“I never had a moral objection to giving the number out,” said Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress. “But the rules said I didn’t have to, so I didn’t. Now I am.”…'”

The fabricated history of the “ancient” palestinian

In 1948, five Arab armies attacked the newborn legitimate and sovereign State of Israel. Transjordan annexed the area intended for an Arab state, and renamed itself the Kingdom of Jordan, calling the annexed area the “West Bank”. At the same time, Egypt took over Gaza.

No Arab suggested making the West Bank and/or Gaza into an Arab state until 1967, when Israel was again attacked by the Arabs and in defense, took those areas.

From 1948-67 when all of the “West Bank” (including Jerusalem) ended up under Arab [Jordanian] control, no effort was ever made to create a palestinian state for the Arabs living there, nor were their attempts by the “poor palestinian people” to wrangle their “homeland” back from Jordan.

It is curious how Arafat and his PLO (formed in 1964, three years BEFORE Israel was attacked by Arabs and therefore makes Israel incapable of “occupying” any “palestinian” land) discovered their fabricated “ancient” identity and a need for “self-determination” and “human dignity” on this very same “West Bank” only AFTER Israel regained this territory (three years later in 1967) following Jordan’s attempt to destroy Israel.

Why was no request ever made upon King Hussein of Jordan who “occupied” the West Bank for all those years?

Is it logical that the PLO was formed in 1964 to regain the lands they would lose three years later in 1967?

This sort of logic makes sense only to those who who have not learned that the PLO was formed to DESTROY Israel.

The destruction of Israel was Arafat’s goal. He failed. Arafat, the Egyptian, failed to destroy Israel and now his diseased body is rotting in a cement tomb, along with his mildewing soul.

Arafat was born in Cairo, folks.

His father, Abd al Ra’uf Arafat Al-Qadwa, was the son of a well-known family from Gaza and nearby Khan-Yunis, who had married Zahava Abu-Sa’ud from Jerusalem. In 1927, the couple had emigrated from Jewish Palestine and settled in Egypt. Two years later their son Yasser was born. When Yasser was three, his mother died and his father sent him to spend some time with his mother’s family in Jerusalem. During the 1930s, Yasser lived alternately in Jerusalem and in Gaza, and after his father remarried, his family sent him back to Cairo, where he spent the rest of his youth.

Many arabs who volunteered to serve the pLO immediately after the Six-Day War noted that their barbaric leader, Arafat, spoke Arabic with an Egyptian accent.

Arabs from Middle Eastern countries can easily recognize the country of origin of any other arab they meet by his accent – and here the man who claimed to be a warrior representing and leading the “palestinian people” spoke with an Egyptian accent.

That’s right, folks. Everything you’ve read about the palestinians is fabricated, embellished, tricked up, falsified and exaggerated.

There is no “palestinian land.” It is only the constant repetition that makes people believe that the “West Bank” belongs to the “Palestinians.” Judea/Samaria (the “West Bank”) is part of the Jewish homeland. Any land that Israel might eventually yield to the Arabs to establish some kind of autonomy would be an act of generosity and accommodation unprecedented in world history.

Because unlike the political Arabian Nation, the Zionist movement to Palestine/the Land of Israel represents a return, not an invasion.

But let’s face it, folks, it’s all academic: Israel is not going anywhere, so get used to it:  Israel is here to stay.

Originally posted on Smooth Stone at

Poland and Iran, Reagan and Obama

Original title: “‘Freedom Fighters’ and the American President”
I frequently get asked how Ronald Reagan would react to certain situations. I’ve gotten those questions a lot lately given the penchant for central planning by the new team Americans elected in Washington.
But nowhere is there a Reagan lesson that needs heeded as desperately as in Iran right now. The desperation is more apparent daily as President Obama doesn’t seem to recognize — or doesn’t know how to support — the huge historical opportunity before his eyes, and quickly slipping through his fingers.
 What would be Reagan’s reaction to what’s happening in Iran? That’s a slam-dunk: He would have responded as he did to every cry for freedom suffocating under the last global scourge America battled — Soviet communism. Wherever those resisting the despots resided and raised their voices, in Afghanistan, in Nicaragua, in Poland, Reagan was consistent, never missing the opportunity, always staying on theme. He called these people “freedom fighters.”
 He did so unequivocally, boldly, proudly, loudly, with the left often trashing him and undermining him, contesting whether this or that group met their criteria as legitimate “freedom” fighters. Reagan was undeterred. He recognized the historical imperative, what he called the March of Freedom. The freedom marchers needed America and its president to urge them on.
 The total Reagan statements promoting these freedom fighters are literally uncountable. I know this well, as I collected them for research purposes. Reagan didn’t simply step to the microphone to encourage these people at certain crisis moments; he called them out routinely, regularly, including in special, newly created ceremonies with names like Afghan Freedom Day, Solidarity Day, Captive Nations Week, and honoring things like “Observance of the Afghan New Year” or speaking at the annual Pulaski Day Banquet in New York City. In these statements, the president of the United States and unapologetic leader of the free world — Reagan took that task to heart — mercilessly blasted the tyrants with just about every name in the book.
 Reagan didn’t play footsies with dictators. He knew human nature. He knew evil. He knew who was wrong. He knew the dictators were bad regardless of whether we were nice. Not condemning them wouldn’t make them behave better.
 Let me give me just one example, which is most appropriate right now: Poland, the heart of the Soviet communist bloc. The crackdown ensuing in Iran has many similarities to what happened to the Solidarity movement in Poland after martial law was declared in December 1981.
 After martial law, an unceasing stream of words and covert activity and aid (billions of dollars worth) — done in coordination with Pope John Paul II’s Vatican — began flowing to the Solidarity underground from the Oval Office. The stream turned into a tidal wave, and Reagan didn’t stop until the levee broke.
 The words alone, which constituted a powerful source of moral support for Poland’s freedom fighters, were so ubiquitous that the final index to the Reagan Presidential Documents — the official collection of all presidential statements — lists references to Solidarity or Poland on 216 pages, with multiple references on most pages. In these, Reagan stood as an unflagging championing of Solidarity, serving up stinging rebukes of Soviet or Polish communist government actions.
 Reagan had geopolitical intentions in mind. He made a commitment to save and sustain the Polish freedom fighters as the wedge to splinter the Soviet bloc; they were the crack in the Iron Curtain, and Reagan wanted to be the crowbar. It turned out that bad news in Poland was good news for freedom: In Reagan’s mind, the ugliness that was the crackdown afforded beautiful possibilities.
 Today, those liberated freedom fighters, who now run Poland, which has been one of our best allies for two decades, freely speak of the importance of Reagan’s support. To quote merely one, Jan Winiecki, a member of Solidarity, told me:
“It’s very important for those underground to know they’ll have support diplomatically if they’re repressed. They knew they could count on Reagan and his administration for this rhetorical, moral, public support — this political support. It raised their spirits that they could survive.”
During that critical period, the Polish people referred to the American president as “Uncle Reagan.” In 1983, the organization Paris Match conducted a poll of 600 Poles traveling to the West. When asked who was the “last hope” for Poland, these Poles placed Reagan behind only the Pope and Virgin Mary, and ahead of Solidarity leader Lech Walesa.
As for Walesa, he now says, “We owe so much to Ronald Reagan. We Poles owe him freedom.”
Alas, Iran today, at this very moment, stands at a critical juncture much like Poland in December 1981. In fact, the Obama White House would be well-served to go back and read how the Reagan White House reacted after martial law was declared on December 13, 1981.
Tragically, Obama is not doing what Reagan did. Aside from underground aid and activity, even mere public declarations of moral support would be significant. What’s he afraid of? Could Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Islamist theocrats running this Jew-hating, nuke-craving, terrorist state be any worse? Though you wouldn’t know it from Obama’s sycophantic American press, Ahmadinejad has already made a fool of Barack Obama since the day the new president stepped into office.
What a genuine tragedy of history that the world has gotten its two most significant shake-ups in Iran under Jimmy Carter and now Barack Obama, and not under a Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush.
In the late 1970s, Carter had essentially given the green light to the would-be mullahs who wanted to overthrow the Shah. Now, Obama, through his silent complicity (as Ralph Peters has pointed out), has given a green light to the enshrined mullahs in their current crackdown against freedom.
This isn’t a surprise. Obama doesn’t have the necessary understanding — in the heart, the gut, the soul. He doesn’t perceive America — to borrow from Reagan — as “less of a place than an idea.” He doesn’t subscribe to Reagan’s oft-invoked aphorism from Thomas Paine, that America has the power “to begin the world all over again.” He doesn’t see America as that lighthouse, that blowtorch of liberty, that Shining City on a Hill that serves as beacon for the oppressed peoples in captive nations around the world.
President George W. Bush, for all his faults, set this nation, and the wider world, on a course to literally transform human history by remaking the Middle East. The seeds for Bush’s vision for a democratic peace, his openly expressed application of Reagan’s March of Freedom, would be in Iraq and Afghanistan. When he spoke of a March of Freedom igniting in the Middle East, Iran was to be a vital outpost along that path.
And for all his sincere efforts, the left bludgeoned him, joyfully beating him into a pulp — destroyed him. The boiling well of liberal hatred was so vicious, so toxic, gushing into a geyser, that it led to the election of the one presidential candidate who most starkly opposed this inspiring Wilsonian-Reaganesque worldview.
Alas, the left got the successor it wanted and deserves.
The American people let us down badly last November. They obliviously elected a president who truly doesn’t seem to get it. We are now reaping what we’ve sown. What a shame, for us, for Iran, for the world. Freedom be damned.

Pakistan: Muslims accuse mentally challenged girl of blasphemy

Obama”s religious brothers keep on sinking to new lows.
Hat-Tip to Robert Spencer
Posted by Robert at 8:53 PM

She was not even sure of her own name, but they were sure she had blasphemed Islam — yet another indication of how Pakistan’s blasphemy laws victimize non-Muslims. Instead of prattling about Islam’s tradition of tolerance, Obama should have called upon Pakistan and other Muslim countries to repeal all such laws.

“Muslims Accuse Mentally Challenged Girl of Blasphemy,” by Jawad Mazhar and Jeremy Sewall for International Christian Concern, June 19 (thanks to Maxwell):

The General Secretary of a fundamentalist Muslim party in Pakistan accused a Christian girl of blasphemy, taking her to the police who interrogated her for 16 hours.On June 3, Muhammad Abid Raza returned to his home in Kharian to find that his younger brother had saved burnt pages of the Koran in plastic bags which he claimed had been burned by their Christian neighbor, Nazia. Even though it was 10pm, Raza said that he immediately alerted the Saddar Police Station.

The next day, police arrived at Nazia’s home and took her and her family members to the police station for questioning, where they kept her for 16 hours. Police realized she was mentally challenged when she failed to respond clearly to basic questions. When police asked her name, she responded, “Nadia.” A few moments later she suddenly said, “No, my name is Shaista,” and then, “No, my name may be Nazia.”

Raza did his own research after accusing her of blasphemy, inquiring about her from neighbors and discussing the issue with Muslim clerics. His investigation led him to drop his charges against Nazia and request that police set her free on June 5.

Jeremy Sewall, ICC’s Advocacy Director, said, “There are two major concerns with this story. First, this is another example of why Pakistan’s blasphemy laws are morally and legally bankrupt. Second, it shows that not even the mentally challenged are adequately protected from harassment and persecution. Praise God that Nazia was released, but her case illustrates exactly why Pakistan must repeal its extremist blasphemy laws.”



Obama Stimulus: Dead People Get Money


Dead people are receiving stimulus checks from Barack Hussein Pbama, Junior’s stimupork. Boy, this is really going to Trickle Up the economy, isn’t it? The idea must be that dead people spend money from the grave and that money Trickles Up? Is that how it works?






You have to admire the putrid Elitism from Pbama, Herr Biden and all the other Commiecrats. They live the Life of Riley while they demand and insist that average Americans make-do with less and cut back on their lifestyle. This is the whole grand agenda behind Socialism – creating a distinct ruling class run by Marxists who oppress hardworking average Americans.




Don’t you enjoy how Pbama is trying to rush all his Fascist programs in to place?



It’s always a good thing when things are rushed, isn’t it? Why bother to take time to plan things out and make sure they get done correctly? Just rush ahead, eyes closed, fingers crossed and your head up your ass. This is Pbama’s Hope and Change. Isn’t it wonderful?


It’s a good thing something like this didn’t occur under a Republican President and a Republican Congress, because if it had – The Insane Liberal Clown Posse (ILCP) would have (rightfully so) called the Admin “incompetent.”

We won’t hear the Jackboot Pbama Cultists or the ILCP calling their False Prophet and his Admin incompetent. No. Barry would ask his Cultists to eat a shit sandwich – a literal turd between two slices of bread – and they would consume it with a smile on their faces and ask for “seconds.”


    The Social Security Administration recently sent out over 52 million checks in the amount of $250 as part of the stimulus package. Due to a rushed schedule, the US Government ended up sending 8,000 to 10,000 checks to people who have already died.
    In an effort to energize the economy, stimulus checks are being mailed to millions of people. Unfortunately, thousands of the recipients are dead.[…]

    James Hagner, 83, of Orchard Beach, Md., re-ceived a stimulus check for his mother, Rose, who died in 1967. SSA spokesman Mark Lassiter said in a published report that officials rushing to distribute payments didn’t thoroughly review all Social Security records.

    Even though Ms. Hagner hadn’t received a Social Security check since the Johnson administration, the agency didn’t have an official record of her death. Therefore, Mr. Lassiter said her records fell into bureaucratic limbo, and she was sent a stimulus check.

    It is more than a bit unsettling that it takes the government 40 years to figure out that someone died. And since the SSA has already admitted that thousands of other dead people also received checks, one has to question how many other checks that SSA doesn’t know about were sent to the dead. (And who knows how many checks are still to be sent to the unliving.)

    In another case, Antoinette Santopadre of Valley Stream, N.Y., received a $250 stimulus check made out not to her, as expected, but to her father, Romolo Romonini.

    Mr. Romonini, an American citizen who went to Italy in 1933 and returned to the United States once, for a seven-month visit in 1969, died in Italy 34 years ago.

    To make matters even stranger, the SSA later found out that he never even participated in the Social Security system.

    Something more than a little odd is going on here. We all expect the enormous federal bureaucracy to spend money stupidly, but sending millions of dollars to the dead is even more wasteful than the $57,000 spent on gold-embossed playing cards for Air Force Two.


Gold-embossed playing cards on Air Force Two? I guess Herr Biden needs something to occupy his time.


And if, as The Left has said all these years, that Trickle Down doesn’t work, are there any Pbama Cultists who can explain to those of us with functioning brains how Trickle Up is supposed to work? What a pile of pure bullshit.

From Short News:

White House moves to restrict free speech and stifle dissent from Obama policies

By Robert Spencer

Right now they’re talking about restricting free speech in connection with dissent from the stimulus bill. Norm Eisen, special counsel to the president for ethics and government reform (of all things), writes this: “Update on Recovery Act Lobbying Rules: New Limits on Special Interest Influence,” from the Blog, May 29 (thanks to James):

Following OMB’s review, the Administration has decided to make a number of changes to the rules that we think make them even tougher on special interests and more focused on merits-based decision making.First, we will expand the restriction on oral communications to cover all persons, not just federally registered lobbyists. For the first time, we will reach contacts not only by registered lobbyists but also by unregistered ones, as well as anyone else exerting influence on the process. We concluded this was necessary under the unique circumstances of the stimulus program.

Second, we will focus the restriction on oral communications to target the scenario where concerns about merit-based decision-making are greatest –after competitive grant applications are submitted and before awards are made. Once such applications are on file, the competition should be strictly on the merits. To that end, comments (unless initiated by an agency official) must be in writing and will be posted on the Internet for every American to see.

Third, we will continue to require immediate internet disclosure of all other communications with registered lobbyists. If registered lobbyists have conversations or meetings before an application is filed, a form must be completed and posted to each agency’s website documenting the contact.

OMB will be consulting with agencies, outside experts and others about these principles and will publish detailed guidance, but we wanted to update interested parties on the outcome of the initial review. We consulted very broadly both within and outside of government (including as reflected in previous posts on the White House blog) and we are grateful to all those who participated in the process.


In “White House moves to restrict criticism of stimulus projects” at the Washington Examiner, May 30 (thanks again to James), Mark Tapscott explains the implications:

This is the Camel’s nose under the tent, being poked because of special circumstances. Let government restrict political expression – i.e. lobbying of government officials regarding policy – in one small, supposedly specialized area and not long after the specialized area starts expanding. Eventually, all political expression regarding all policy will become subject to government regulation.More on this as it develops. And trust me, it will develop.


With the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) making an all-out international effort to restrict free speech about Islam, including speech designed to alert non-Muslims to the motives and goals of the global jihad movement, and Obama making conciliatory gestures toward the OIC, it is not at all difficult to look down the path and see the day coming when it will Sharia provisions restricting speech about Islam will be in place in the United States of America, and it will be illegal to speak about the Islamic supremacist agenda.

Most, of course, will dismiss such concerns the way they always dismiss them: with a wave of the hand and an invocation of the First Amendment — as if the First Amendment were some kind of inviolate shield that cannot itself ever in any way be impeached or impugned. Would that it were so. But the Obama Administration is already showing how little it cares for free speech and open dissent. And with an Obama-compliant Supreme Court judging cases that challenge their actions and interpreting the First Amendment for us, what’s to stop the Administration from playing ball with the OIC and building wonderful new bridges with the Islamic world in this way?

Muslim chef sues Britain’s largest police force, claiming religious discrimination because he was expected to cook bacon and pork sausages

From JihadWatch.Org

Stealth jihad in action: when Islamic law and Western customs conflict, in a Western country, which will have to give way? And what precedent will be set by the endless accommodation of Islamic rules and sensibilities? Either someone at some point will have the courage to call a halt and say that there will be no more accommodation of Islamic law at the expense of British custom and law, or the demands and accommodations will continue until the UK becomes a Sharia state.

“Muslim chef sues over pork request,” by David Sapsted for The National, May 9 (thanks to Weasel Zippers):

LONDON // A Muslim chef is suing Britain’s largest police force, claiming he suffered religious discrimination because he was expected to cook bacon and pork sausages for breakfast.Hasanali Khoja is due to put his case against the Metropolitan Police to an employment tribunal, which starts a 10-day hearing in London tomorrow.

The case has caused outrage in the British press and has been seized on by far right political parties, being branded “the madness of multiculturalism” by the British National Party.

Mr Khoja, 60, whose claim is being backed by both the Association of Muslim Police and the National Black Police Association, says he was refused permission not to handle pork when he took a job as catering manager at a police headquarters in west London.

Instead, he said his supervisor suggested he wear gloves when preparing a “999 breakfast” – a policeman’s favourite that includes bacon, pork sausages and black pudding, which is made from pigs’ blood.

“I felt very unhappy about it. I was very upset and angry because it is not permissible in my religion,” said Mr Khoja, who is an adviser on Muslim food issues on the government’s Foods Standards Agency.

“I was threatened that management would sack me if I did not follow instructions. But I never enrolled to cook pork. I refused to do it. I never did it and I never would.

“I had a letter from the human resources department saying that I would not be required to cook any pork. But this was not exactly what I wanted as a guarantee.

“The Met has shown no sensitivity towards my religion. Their response has been ill-thought and discriminatory.”

Prior to moving to the west London headquarter, Mr Khoja worked at Hendon Police Training College, where he was not required to handle pork products.

“My original contract did not include any kind of cooking. I was hired as a senior catering manager,” he said. “I protested at the move [to west London] and at having to cook pork.

“I was placed on paid, special leave for a year. No Muslim in my position should have to face such harassment.”


Then find another job. Why must the job change to suit you instead of you changing to suit the job? Is there no job in all of Britain that does not violate your religious sensibilities?

This is a naked attempt to bully the police into granting more accommodations to Islam, not a genuine plea for rights. And some people are noticing:

However, his plight has generated little sympathy in the mainstream of British society. Richard Littlejohn, a columnist for the Daily Mail, wrote: “There are some stories which are so preposterous on so many levels that it is difficult to know where to start.“Whoever heard of a chef being excused pork? Naturally, he now wants a large sum of money by way of compensation. The Met has a long and undistinguished record of grovelling to this kind of opportunist bullying.

“What astonishes me is that he ever applied for a job cooking for policemen in the first place. What, precisely, did he think they serve up in a police canteen – vegetarian samosas?

“If he had a fundamental objection [to cooking pork], he should go and work somewhere else. Hiring a chef who won’t cook sausages to work in a police canteen is like hiring a lifeguard who can’t swim.

“Typically, I would imagine, the police were so terrified of being accused of ‘racism’ that they took him on regardless.”



But Khalid Sofi, Mr Khoja’s lawyer, insisted there was “an important issue of principle at stake” in the case, with ramifications for the police and wider society in Britain.“He has genuine and strong religious beliefs and expects that they will be accommodated,” he said. “’The Met is a very large organisation and could easily have met his demands.

“Mr Khoja’s case raises the general question of the Met accommodating the needs of the Muslim community at a time when there is a lack of confidence in the police among Muslims.

“We are confident that we have a very good claim. Religious discrimination law obliges employers if possible to accommodate genuine religious needs.

“This case goes in to wider issues of diversity and I think it raises significant issues in the current climate.”

A spokesman for the National Black Police Association said: “It was suggested that he could wear gloves to cook bacon and sausages. This, of course, was no good because it is the principle involved and not about just handling the meat.

“It was all very, very nasty. They were telling him to do something that was against his faith.”


It is indeed about the principle involved and not about just handling the meat. It is about an attempt by Islamic groups to establish cultural hegemony in Britain, and to set themselves up as a privileged class to whom all others must cater.

Posted by Robert

Afghan suicide bomber accidently blows up fellow jihadists

No virgins for you, buddy. Just imagine how embarrassed he will be in front of Atta and the gang when he shows up expecting to be admitted into Paradise (Qur’an 9:111), welcomed by the virgins (Qur’an 44:54), and finds out that instead he faces an eternity of drinking molten lead in hellfire (Qur’an 18:29) because he killed fellow Muslims (Qur’an 4:92).

“Afghan bomber accidentally blows up militants,” from Reuters, March 26 (thanks to JE):

A would-be suicide bomber accidentally blew himself up, killing six other militants as he was bidding them farewell to leave for his intended target, the Interior Ministry said.”The terrorist was on his way to his destination and saying good-bye to his associates and then his suicide vest exploded,” a statement from the ministry said….


Posted by Robert at 12:08 PM | Comments

Muslim villagers burn girl alive in ‘honour killing’

From JihadWatch

According to this account, “The victim had screamed for help for about 20 minutes before neighbours arrived only to find her still smoldering.”

“Villagers burn girl alive in ‘honour killing,”‘ from, March 24 (thanks to Jeffrey Imm):

A TEENAGE[R] was burned to death at her home in India in an “honour killing” by neighbours.
Four residents of her village in Ghaziabad, north India, allegedly set the 16-year-old Muslim girl alight after they suspected her of having a relationship with a boy. 

Police claim residents kept a vigil on her house as they noticed the boy visited her frequently when her father was away. The four men then beat her, doused her with kerosene and set her on fire.

District police chief Akhil Kumar said: “The four men came to the girl’s house and demanded to know why the young man frequently visited her. The girl’s younger sister, who felt the visitors were getting violent, ran out of the house.

“Meanwhile, the accused beat up the girl and then set her on fire with kerosene oil.”

She gave a dying statement to the police saying the accused beat her and set her on fire.

Vijay Singh, station officer at Bhojpur police station in Ghaziabad, said: “The girl has succumbed to her injuries. We have been looking for the four men accused in this case. One of them has been caught and charged with murder.”

Muslim Woman Calls on Non-Muslims To Save Her From Muslims

By Jihadwatch

Taliban threatens to behead founder of jihadist website

To be bitten by the dog she fed?

Over the years we’ve linked to Jihad Unspun several times to illustrate jihadist perspectives. The site’s founder, Beverly Giesbrecht, is a Canadian convert to Islam who now goes by the name Khadija Abdul Qahaar — but her open allegiance to the global jihad didn’t stop jihadists in Pakistan from kidnapping her. I’ve also heard many times that Jihad Unspun was a CIA front, but don’t have any confirmation of this, and that doesn’t seem to be why the Taliban kidnapped her.

Now she calls upon her country — whose traditions, laws, and society she has despised and rejected — to save her.

“Taliban threaten to behead Canadian hostage: Ransom must be paid by end of March, captive says in video,” by Rehmat Mehsud and Tu Thanh Ha in the Globe and Mail, March 20 (thanks to all who sent this in):

BANNU, PAKISTAN and TORONTO — A Canadian held hostage after she travelled to the lawless tribal belt of northern Pakistan says the Taliban will behead her by the end of the month if a ransom isn’t paid.In a new video provided to The Globe and Mail, Beverly Giesbrecht expresses fear for her life if her captors aren’t paid.

“I have been advised and asked to make this video. We have very short time now and I am going to be killed, as you can see,” she says, gesturing at the dagger on the wall behind her, pointed at her head.

She alluded to Piotr Stanczak, a kidnapped Polish engineer who was executed by militants last month, the first killing of a Western hostage in Pakistan since U.S. journalist Daniel Pearl in 2002.

In the video, Canadian Beverley Giesbrecht gestures to the dagger pointed toward her head as a sign she is going to be killed.

“I am going to be beheaded just like the Polish engineer, probably by the end of the month. The deadline is by the end of March, and that’s basically, I don’t know, 18 days or 16 days,” she says, closing her eyes.

“I’m not quite sure how long that is but the time is very short and my life is going to end,” she adds in a choked voice.

In the short video, Ms. Giesbrecht, 52, wearing a head scarf and sitting on a wooden chair, says that she is being held by the Taliban “near the Afghan border, either Pakistan or Afghanistan.”

The video opens with a voice reciting from the Koran. Abu Jindal, a moniker adopted by some jihadis, appears in Arabic and Urdu, superimposed over Ms. Giesbrecht’s face.

Ms. Giesbrecht, who is also known as Khadija Abdul Qahaar, has been a captive for four months.

The West Vancouver resident converted to Islam after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and runs a website, Jihad Unspun, that says it provides information “devoid of the constraints of mainstream media.” Her visa application to Pakistan said she was a freelance journalist working on a documentary for the Al-Jazeera television network.

She was captured by gunmen last November, reportedly by the Taliban commander Gul Bahadur, who leads fighters in the volatile North Waziristan region.

“I need some kind, someone to help me, the Pakistani government and my own country and somebody must move now, because my life is going to be over. I want to go home. So, these people are serious. Please help me,” a wavering Ms. Giesbrecht says in her latest video….

UK jihadist protesters say they will target soldiers returning from Iraq again

By Jihadwatch


Good thing the Brits didn’t let Geert Wilders into the country to stir up intercommunity strife, eh? More on this story.

“‘Disgraceful’ Islamist protesters plan to target more soldiers returning from Iraq,” by David Byers and Steve Bird in the Times, March 11 (thanks to Block Ness):

Islamist extremists in the UK are plotting to repeat their protest of yesterday in which they held up banners labelling British troops on their homecoming parade as “cowards” and “butchers”.The Islam for the UK group, believed to be a spin-off of the extremist al-Muhajiroun, called for similar rallies against other regiments coming home following protests in Luton town centre targeting the 2nd Battalion The Royal Anglian Regiment.

Members of the local community in Luton claim that the protesters were members of al-Muhajiroun itself, a virulently anti-Semitic organisation which claimed to have been disbanded in 2004. Its founders replaced it with two spin-off groups, both of which were then subsequently made illegal by the Government for glorifying terrorism.

The Home Office said today that anyone found to be guilty of belonging to a banned organisation would be prosecuted, and that it was constantly reviewing whether to ban further groups emerging throughout the UK.


Uh, might not be a bad idea.

The group of demonstrators – who held up placards in Luton town centre with slogans including: “Anglian Soldiers: Butchers of Basra”, “Anglian Soldiers: cowards, killers, extremists” and “British Government Terrorist Government” and hurled verbal abuse at passing soldiers – were described by the local MP as having brought “disgrace” to Luton.Yet in a statement posted on its website, Islam for the UK said further protests in a similar vein were needed, labelled the British troops as “terrorists” and compared them to the Nazis. Islam for the UK is run by Anjem Choudhury, the radical preacher who was right hand man to Omar Bakri Mohammed, former al-Muhajiroun leader….


“Muslim hate preacher ridicules troops abused in anti-war protests – and mocks their dead comrade,” by Michael Seamark, Andrew Levy and Matt Sandy for the Daily Mail, March 11 (thanks to all who sent this in):

A Muslim preacher of hate today ridiculed British soldiers who were abused during a homecoming parade – branding them cowards who have an ‘uncanny knack for death by friendly fire’.Firebrand preacher Anjem Choudary praised the Muslims who had protested at yesterday’s parade for the 2nd Battalion Royal Anglian Regiment in Luton.

And in an inflammatory message posted on an Islamic extremist website, Choudary viciously mocked their comrade who was killed by friendly fire in Iraq.


But of course the dhimmi British officials go after not Choudary, but those who find this outrageous:

His words came as police charged a man who allegedly shouted abuse at the Muslim anti-war protesters.Choudary, who has links with banned Muslim cleric Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed, likened the soldiers to Nazis and branded yesterday’s homecoming a ‘vile parade’ of ‘brutal murderers’.

Choudary said: ‘On 10th March 2009 200 pathetic and cowardly British soldiers from the second battalion, of the Royal Anglian Regiment, pompously marched through Luton to demonstrate their skill at murdering and torturing thousands of innocent Muslim men, women and children (in Iraq) over a 24-month period.’


Choudary, you’ll recall, doesn’t believe any non-Muslim is innocent.

Choudary leads the controversial Islam For The UK organisation which wants Britain to be an Islamic state, ruled by Sharia law.His group was formed after Bakri’s fundamentalist organisation Al-Muhajiroun was banned by the Government.

He said: ‘Non-Muslims in Britain must appreciate that the actions of the British soldiers must be condemned unreservedly; they are not heroes but closer to cowards who cannot fight, as their uncanny knack for death by ‘friendly fire’ illustrates.’…